Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

re-psycled

3 dead in N2E

Recommended Posts

There you go again, pretending that I was saying that is smart. That is your strawman, dude, not mine.

 

No, what I've been saying is that you posited "might have simply been laid out on the seats looking up at the stars" as a plausable theory. And I found that about as likely as the skipper setting the boat on autopilot and passing out an Ambien to each crewmember.

 

Your comment actually kind of pisses me off (when I'm not laughing at you that is) because it suggests these FOUR people were either extremely stupid or absolutely insane, because that's what you'd have to be to lay down and look at the stars while in a fucking life or fucking DEATH struggle to stay awake.

 

That just suggesting another way it could have happened other than being completely asleep, you dumbshit.

 

Think they were all on watch? At 1:30 while motoring? Too funny. "Life or death struggle"? While motoring in low wind and swell? Yeah, I'm sure the adrenalin was really flowing right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a clear night I have never witnessed anyone sitting staring at a radar screen? (4) friends on a overnight race very little chance one was tasked with staring at the radar 24/7..... Even on boats with full time navigators that does not happen.

 

So do you think that the island would show up on the radar at only the last minute, when going only 6.5 knots?

 

Do you find any means of striking the island while maintaining a proper watch?

 

I don't even see why anyone is disputing this. Clearly a proper watch was not maintained. One plausible explanation and the simplest, requiring no mystery events to have occurred, is that all were asleep.

 

If you prefer to say that they were awake and quite negligent, you can argue that if you like. None can prove it untrue.

 

I cannot recall if you were one of the ones touting the electronics wizardry of the owner. I'll assume that you were not. However in general there's been a wide problem of those reaching for strained explanations talking out of both sides of their mouths to do it. (Not you.)

 

At least, I ask others, if presenting alternate theories, be consistent.

 

EDIT: As for "strawman arguments," mentioned in another post... your "staring at the radar 24/7" is a strawman argument also. It's not either/or.

 

 

 

Have you ever been on a boat at night? Two guys chatting or tinkering. One goes below to the head or make coffee.... Add a layer only to get distracted? Backs to the bulkhead behind the dodger. They peek around every few minutes.... In the pitch darkness they miss the early views of the Island. NP they think they have a 1 mile alarm on the radar. For whatever reason they do not. 1 mile is +/-10 minutes. Crunch! They are not the first mariners to fail to maintain a proper watch.

 

How many hours total did they have at sea? Whether it was a ship or the Island. They failed to maintain a proper watch and died. Even if CO was involved they failed to maintain a proper watch. I have been around back draft of flow many times. It always starts with one or more people feeling poorly. Anyone maintaining a proper watch would catch this. If they were drunk or in the bunks or both maybe not.

 

They did not know what was going on around them and died. Blind faith in modern electronics could be a big part of that. Anyone asking about radar is a part of the modern problem.

 

 

You think North Coronado Island, with its near vertical rock faces and obviously substantial elevation, wouldn't show up on radar till about one mile out?

 

And now comes in the carbon monoxide again.

 

Jeebus!!

 

And no, talking about the radar is not part of the problem. The radar, if operable but ignored, indicates that failure to keep proper watch most likely occurred for quite some time rather than this being a last minute distraction issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can be as simple as taking away the auto-pilot. I've done that. Hand steer to keep myself awake.

 

Hah, a point of agreement! Done this many times myself.

 

In fact, on a three week crossing with 4 newbies as crew I once disabled the damn thing figuring we had a lot better chance of getting to point B if everybody had to hand steer their two hour watch. Turned out to be one of the more enjoyable passages I've logged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no mystery here.

People make mistakes. Experienced people make mistakes when they are complacent and inexperienced people when they are over their head and both sometimes just make plain dumb ones.

 

These sailors made two mistakes. They failed to keep a proper watch and they failed to do proper navigation. And those two mistakes killed them. Experienced people have made those mistakes and inexperienced people have made those mistakes. They are not as difficult to understand or uncommon as some here seem to think.

 

There is no disrespect in saying that. They were human and made human mistakes.

 

The most respect we can give them is to remember their mistakes and the price they paid and use it to remember to pay attention and take care in our own sailing.

 

In my experience, very often a catastrophic event is the result of many mistakes, one leads to another and so on.

No one mistake necessarily worse than another, the sum of the mistakes compounded resulting in some sort of tragedy.

 

Often, the last mistake, or the most obvious mistake gets the headline, when an investigation will show, it was the culmination of mistakes that are to blame.

 

It seems to me that is often the finding of the FAA when they are exhaustively investigating airline disasters.

 

In this case, we may never know the complete truth of what happened out there, but there are lessons to be learned from the examination of the FACTS that can be determined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple put NO matter how the disaster unfolded the crew of the Sailing Vessel Aegean failed this primary rule of the sea:

 

"Section 1 of the Coast Guard Navigation Rules, Rule 5 states that "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." Simply put, look around and listen for danger in all conditions so you can make good decisions and avoid hitting another boat."

A proper watch would catch the signs of CO toxicity on deck

 

A proper watch would see another vessel and fight to not be run down, lights, scream like hell into the VHF, turn 90 degrees from the path of the other vessel.

 

A proper watch would not surf down onto a land mass

 

Dollar to Donuts they would be alive today if they had thrown all the electronics overboard at the start. They should have also torn the dodger away at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That just suggesting another way it could have happened other than being completely asleep... .

 

Well, that is just really stupid Mark, I'm sorry, and its insulting to the dead. Nobody in their right mind lays down to look at the stars while on watch. Nobody.

 

 

"Life or death struggle"? While motoring in low wind and swell?

 

If you aren't looking at staying awake as a matter of life or death while on watch on a boat at sea you are again either extremely stupid or insane. Toss in the fact that they were in close proximity to shipping, to islands and to the mainland and they'd have to be doubly stupid and/or insane to take their responsibility as being anything other than a matter of life and death. Dude, get real, you made a mistake, now move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to throw something out -- maybe this theory has already been posited... Now I know this didn't happen to the Aegean(or very much most likely didn't), but what if the receiving GPS signal for their Chartplotter/Autopilot was off by a 1/4 mile (or more?) or so? I can very well see them looking at the chartplotter and if the person at the helm was watching the track and it shows the Aegean missing the Island they probably just thought "we are fine" and thus were lulled into a false sense of security just watching the Chartplotter thinking they will easily go around the Island and then BAM.... If you keep looking at just the chartplotter (which many of us do) and not double or triple check via radar and or light markers it can happen

 

The only way to know if this happened would be to get the actual "track" data of their voyage from their specific chartplotter . I'm pretty sure that data is lost when its shut off (maybe?) so we'll never know.

 

But it did happen to me - luckily it was daylight & I was watching with my eyes and something was "not right". I was sailing down LI Sound to the East river for the 1 year anniversary of 9/11 for an event called "Sail For America" (actually I think the actual date was 9/10/02). But I was tracking with autopilot via the GPS/Chartplotter right down the middle of the Sound and as I'm looking around something doesn't look right and then I see a green gong on my starboard side before execution rocks and I think "Woah" -- where the hell am I !".... I turned around and high tailed it out of there, but my GPS said I was smack dab in the middle of the sound. I don't think the GPS was that accurate the whole weekend - Thinking back I was guessing that the US government 'messed' with GPS to deal with any terrorist attacks on the one year anniversary of 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dollar to Donuts they would be alive today if they had thrown all the electronics overboard at the start. They should have also torn the dodger away at the same time.

 

Yep, and there is nothing like the wind in your face and an occasional seawater douche to keep you awake and alert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a clear night I have never witnessed anyone sitting staring at a radar screen? (4) friends on a overnight race very little chance one was tasked with staring at the radar 24/7..... Even on boats with full time navigators that does not happen.

 

So do you think that the island would show up on the radar at only the last minute, when going only 6.5 knots?

 

Do you find any means of striking the island while maintaining a proper watch?

 

I don't even see why anyone is disputing this. Clearly a proper watch was not maintained. One plausible explanation and the simplest, requiring no mystery events to have occurred, is that all were asleep.

 

If you prefer to say that they were awake and quite negligent, you can argue that if you like. None can prove it untrue.

 

I cannot recall if you were one of the ones touting the electronics wizardry of the owner. I'll assume that you were not. However in general there's been a wide problem of those reaching for strained explanations talking out of both sides of their mouths to do it. (Not you.)

 

At least, I ask others, if presenting alternate theories, be consistent.

 

EDIT: As for "strawman arguments," mentioned in another post... your "staring at the radar 24/7" is a strawman argument also. It's not either/or.

 

 

 

Have you ever been on a boat at night? Two guys chatting or tinkering. One goes below to the head or make coffee.... Add a layer only to get distracted? Backs to the bulkhead behind the dodger. They peek around every few minutes.... In the pitch darkness they miss the early views of the Island. NP they think they have a 1 mile alarm on the radar. For whatever reason they do not. 1 mile is +/-10 minutes. Crunch! They are not the first mariners to fail to maintain a proper watch.

 

How many hours total did they have at sea? Whether it was a ship or the Island. They failed to maintain a proper watch and died. Even if CO was involved they failed to maintain a proper watch. I have been around back draft of flow many times. It always starts with one or more people feeling poorly. Anyone maintaining a proper watch would catch this. If they were drunk or in the bunks or both maybe not.

 

They did not know what was going on around them and died. Blind faith in modern electronics could be a big part of that. Anyone asking about radar is a part of the modern problem.

 

 

You think North Coronado Island, with its near vertical rock faces and obviously substantial elevation, wouldn't show up on radar till about one mile out?

 

And now comes in the carbon monoxide again.

 

Jeebus!!

 

And no, talking about the radar is not part of the problem. The radar, if operable but ignored, indicates that failure to keep proper watch most likely occurred for quite some time rather than this being a last minute distraction issue.

 

No what I suggested is someone simply set an alarm and expect the radar to do the watching. In the middle of the ocean you may set those alarms at very long distances. Near shore or during a race some set those alarms very close to the boat. The mistake is counting on the radar or its alarms. The alarm goes off and someone turns the volume off. The next alarm, that no one hears, is the one that kills you.

 

I have never witnessed anyone on a pleasure boat focused on the radar for more than short visits to find a mark or such. On many boats the radar is not even view able to the watch on deck.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That just suggesting another way it could have happened other than being completely asleep... .

 

Well, that is just really stupid Mark, I'm sorry, and its insulting to the dead. Nobody in their right mind lays down to look at the stars while on watch. Nobody.

 

 

"Life or death struggle"? While motoring in low wind and swell?

 

If you aren't looking at staying awake as a matter of life or death while on watch on a boat at sea you are again either extremely stupid or insane. Toss in the fact that they were in close proximity to shipping, to islands and to the mainland and they'd have to be doubly stupid and/or insane to take their responsibility as being anything other than a matter of life and death. Dude, get real, you made a mistake, now move on.

 

"Insulting to the dead". PC bullshit.

 

What mistake have I made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple put NO matter how the disaster unfolded the crew of the Sailing Vessel Aegean failed this primary rule of the sea:

 

"Section 1 of the Coast Guard Navigation Rules, Rule 5 states that "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." Simply put, look around and listen for danger in all conditions so you can make good decisions and avoid hitting another boat."

A proper watch would catch the signs of CO toxicity on deck

 

A proper watch would see another vessel and fight to not be run down, lights, scream like hell into the VHF, turn 90 degrees from the path of the other vessel.

 

A proper watch would not surf down onto a land mass

 

Dollar to Donuts they would be alive today if they had thrown all the electronics overboard at the start. They should have also torn the dodger away at the same time.

Yeah, I'll have to agree with that one, electronics OB. Unfortunately, all these fancy (looking) new boats get sold to unknowing noobs (popular with the Bentahuntalina crowd) with this stuff loaded on it because it has this or that bell and whistle it seems better/safer, usually something bright, blinky, and sleek looking. These things should come with warning stickers posted on them front and center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to throw something out -- maybe this theory has already been posited... Now I know this didn't happen to the Aegean(or very much most likely didn't), but what if the receiving GPS signal for their Chartplotter/Autopilot was off by a 1/4 mile (or more?) or so? I can very well see them looking at the chartplotter and if the person at the helm was watching the track and it shows the Aegean missing the Island they probably just thought "we are fine" and thus were lulled into a false sense of security just watching the Chartplotter thinking they will easily go around the Island and then BAM.... If you keep looking at just the chartplotter (which many of us do) and not double or triple check via radar and or light markers it can happen

 

The only way to know if this happened would be to get the actual "track" data of their voyage from their specific chartplotter . I'm pretty sure that data is lost when its shut off (maybe?) so we'll never know.

 

But it did happen to me - luckily it was daylight & I was watching with my eyes and something was "not right". I was sailing down LI Sound to the East river for the 1 year anniversary of 9/11 for an event called "Sail For America" (actually I think the actual date was 9/10/02). But I was tracking with autopilot via the GPS/Chartplotter right down the middle of the Sound and as I'm looking around something doesn't look right and then I see a green gong on my starboard side before execution rocks and I think "Woah" -- where the hell am I !".... I turned around and high tailed it out of there, but my GPS said I was smack dab in the middle of the sound. I don't think the GPS was that accurate the whole weekend - Thinking back I was guessing that the US government 'messed' with GPS to deal with any terrorist attacks on the one year anniversary of 9/11.

 

Grab a GPS and walk or drive around Manhattan to see just how far and how often a GPS can be wrong. Anyone who trusts his life to a GPS is a fool. Anyone who flames back here is simply ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a clear night I have never witnessed anyone sitting staring at a radar screen? (4) friends on a overnight race very little chance one was tasked with staring at the radar 24/7..... Even on boats with full time navigators that does not happen.

 

So do you think that the island would show up on the radar at only the last minute, when going only 6.5 knots?

 

Do you find any means of striking the island while maintaining a proper watch?

 

I don't even see why anyone is disputing this. Clearly a proper watch was not maintained. One plausible explanation and the simplest, requiring no mystery events to have occurred, is that all were asleep.

 

If you prefer to say that they were awake and quite negligent, you can argue that if you like. None can prove it untrue.

 

I cannot recall if you were one of the ones touting the electronics wizardry of the owner. I'll assume that you were not. However in general there's been a wide problem of those reaching for strained explanations talking out of both sides of their mouths to do it. (Not you.)

 

At least, I ask others, if presenting alternate theories, be consistent.

 

EDIT: As for "strawman arguments," mentioned in another post... your "staring at the radar 24/7" is a strawman argument also. It's not either/or.

 

 

 

Have you ever been on a boat at night? Two guys chatting or tinkering. One goes below to the head or make coffee.... Add a layer only to get distracted? Backs to the bulkhead behind the dodger. They peek around every few minutes.... In the pitch darkness they miss the early views of the Island. NP they think they have a 1 mile alarm on the radar. For whatever reason they do not. 1 mile is +/-10 minutes. Crunch! They are not the first mariners to fail to maintain a proper watch.

 

How many hours total did they have at sea? Whether it was a ship or the Island. They failed to maintain a proper watch and died. Even if CO was involved they failed to maintain a proper watch. I have been around back draft of flow many times. It always starts with one or more people feeling poorly. Anyone maintaining a proper watch would catch this. If they were drunk or in the bunks or both maybe not.

 

They did not know what was going on around them and died. Blind faith in modern electronics could be a big part of that. Anyone asking about radar is a part of the modern problem.

 

 

You think North Coronado Island, with its near vertical rock faces and obviously substantial elevation, wouldn't show up on radar till about one mile out?

 

And now comes in the carbon monoxide again.

 

Jeebus!!

 

And no, talking about the radar is not part of the problem. The radar, if operable but ignored, indicates that failure to keep proper watch most likely occurred for quite some time rather than this being a last minute distraction issue.

 

No what I suggested is someone simply set an alarm and expect the radar to do the watching. In the middle of the ocean you may set those alarms at very long distances. Near shore or during a race some set those alarms very close to the boat. The mistake is counting on the radar or its alarms. The alarm goes off and someone turns the volume off. The next alarm, that no one hears, is the one that kills you.

 

I have never witnessed anyone on a pleasure boat focused on the radar for more than short visits to find a mark or such. On many boats the radar is not even view able to the watch on deck.

 

"Focused," no.

 

Never looking, when close to the coast, in shipping lanes, and instead relying on alarm only AND not keeping sufficient visual watch... not good. Speaking the obvious.

 

While it could have happened while awake, being asleep also could be an explanation for such extended totally-not-looking at the radar (as opposed to the proper not "focused" on the radar.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to throw something out -- maybe this theory has already been posited... Now I know this didn't happen to the Aegean(or very much most likely didn't), but what if the receiving GPS signal for their Chartplotter/Autopilot was off by a 1/4 mile (or more?) or so? I can very well see them looking at the chartplotter and if the person at the helm was watching the track and it shows the Aegean missing the Island they probably just thought "we are fine" and thus were lulled into a false sense of security just watching the Chartplotter thinking they will easily go around the Island and then BAM.... If you keep looking at just the chartplotter (which many of us do) and not double or triple check via radar and or light markers it can happen

 

The only way to know if this happened would be to get the actual "track" data of their voyage from their specific chartplotter . I'm pretty sure that data is lost when its shut off (maybe?) so we'll never know.

 

But it did happen to me - luckily it was daylight & I was watching with my eyes and something was "not right". I was sailing down LI Sound to the East river for the 1 year anniversary of 9/11 for an event called "Sail For America" (actually I think the actual date was 9/10/02). But I was tracking with autopilot via the GPS/Chartplotter right down the middle of the Sound and as I'm looking around something doesn't look right and then I see a green gong on my starboard side before execution rocks and I think "Woah" -- where the hell am I !".... I turned around and high tailed it out of there, but my GPS said I was smack dab in the middle of the sound. I don't think the GPS was that accurate the whole weekend - Thinking back I was guessing that the US government 'messed' with GPS to deal with any terrorist attacks on the one year anniversary of 9/11.

 

Grab a GPS and walk or drive around Manhattan to see just how far and how often a GPS can be wrong. Anyone who trusts his life to a GPS is a fool. Anyone who flames back here is simply ignorant.

 

Yep - don't disagree - especially in manhattan with the tall builings screwing up the GPS signals -- but just wondering if maybe that's what happened to Aegean. It can lull you into a false sense of security -- But I will say in my experience when it (GPS) works it is ~incredibly~ accurate now. If I set it for the Red Nun Bell # 32 outside of Stamford I can consistently hit it, if I wanted to... but I would never say I could 100% of the time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to throw something out -- maybe this theory has already been posited... Now I know this didn't happen to the Aegean(or very much most likely didn't), but what if the receiving GPS signal for their Chartplotter/Autopilot was off by a 1/4 mile (or more?) or so? I can very well see them looking at the chartplotter and if the person at the helm was watching the track and it shows the Aegean missing the Island they probably just thought "we are fine" and thus were lulled into a false sense of security just watching the Chartplotter thinking they will easily go around the Island and then BAM.... If you keep looking at just the chartplotter (which many of us do) and not double or triple check via radar and or light markers it can happen

 

The only way to know if this happened would be to get the actual "track" data of their voyage from their specific chartplotter . I'm pretty sure that data is lost when its shut off (maybe?) so we'll never know.

 

But it did happen to me - luckily it was daylight & I was watching with my eyes and something was "not right". I was sailing down LI Sound to the East river for the 1 year anniversary of 9/11 for an event called "Sail For America" (actually I think the actual date was 9/10/02). But I was tracking with autopilot via the GPS/Chartplotter right down the middle of the Sound and as I'm looking around something doesn't look right and then I see a green gong on my starboard side before execution rocks and I think "Woah" -- where the hell am I !".... I turned around and high tailed it out of there, but my GPS said I was smack dab in the middle of the sound. I don't think the GPS was that accurate the whole weekend - Thinking back I was guessing that the US government 'messed' with GPS to deal with any terrorist attacks on the one year anniversary of 9/11.

 

Grab a GPS and walk or drive around Manhattan to see just how far and how often a GPS can be wrong. Anyone who trusts his life to a GPS is a fool. Anyone who flames back here is simply ignorant.

 

I've tested my GPS at sea and in the slip several times. It's never been right on the money - the way I've seen a SPOT work. GPS is close - a couple slips away, sometimes farther. I've placed the spot on top of the table in the backyard and it shows that's exactly where it is. GPS is in the vicinity, but not in the exact spot. Maybe the GPS units in cars work better. And, I'll add, my GPS is about 11 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dollar to Donuts they would be alive today if they had thrown all the electronics overboard at the start. They should have also torn the dodger away at the same time.

 

Bingo!!! We have a winner!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grab a GPS and walk or drive around Manhattan to see just how far and how often a GPS can be wrong. Anyone who trusts his life to a GPS is a fool. Anyone who flames back here is simply ignorant.

 

I've tested my GPS at sea and in the slip several times. It's never been right on the money - the way I've seen a SPOT work. GPS is close - a couple slips away, sometimes farther. I've placed the spot on top of the table in the backyard and it shows that's exactly where it is. GPS is in the vicinity, but not in the exact spot. Maybe the GPS units in cars work better. And, I'll add, my GPS is about 11 years old.

 

SPOT gets its position from GPS.

 

So it is your GPS unit, not GPS itself that is less accurate than your SPOT unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The acute effects produced by carbon monoxide in relation to ambient concentration in parts per million are listed below:[14][15]

 

ConcentrationSymptoms35 ppm (0.0035%)Headache and dizziness within six to eight hours of constant exposure100 ppm (0.01%)Slight headache in two to three hours200 ppm (0.02%)Slight headache within two to three hours; loss of judgment400 ppm (0.04%)Frontal headache within one to two hours800 ppm (0.08%)Dizziness, nausea, and convulsions within 45 min; insensible within 2 hours1,600 ppm (0.16%)Headache, tachycardia, dizziness, and nausea within 20 min; death in less than 2 hours3,200 ppm (0.32%)Headache, dizziness and nausea in five to ten minutes. Death within 30 minutes.6,400 ppm (0.64%)Headache and dizziness in one to two minutes. Convulsions, respiratory arrest, and death in less than 20 minutes.12,800 ppm (1.28%)Unconsciousness after 2-3 breaths. Death in less than three minutes.

A proper on deck watch is expected to catch CO issues before damage is done. That said CO damage from modern diesels is virtually unheard of. The direct exhaust only contains 10,000 parts per million. You would have to virtually huff the exhaust to get to the levels of real bodily damage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not comprehend the naysayers that feel "something" happened other than them falling asleep on watch. I personaly know of a Melgi 24 that was doing the N2E about 6-8 years ago where ALL the crew fell asleep on deck during the drifters in the evening. Somebody finaly woke up when they were about 1/4 mile off the beach near Salaspudies.

 

Mistakes do and always will happen.... Darwin or Murphy, one of them is gonna get you. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not comprehend the naysayers that feel "something" happened other than them falling asleep on watch. I personaly know of a Melgi 24 that was doing the N2E about 6-8 years ago where ALL the crew fell asleep on deck during the drifters in the evening. Somebody finaly woke up when they were about 1/4 mile off the beach near Salaspudies.

 

Mistakes do and always will happen.... Darwin or Murphy, one of them is gonna get you. :ph34r:

 

Been there, done that, the whole crew, including the helmsman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not comprehend the naysayers that feel "something" happened other than them falling asleep on watch. I personaly know of a Melgi 24 that was doing the N2E about 6-8 years ago where ALL the crew fell asleep on deck during the drifters in the evening. Somebody finaly woke up when they were about 1/4 mile off the beach near Salaspudies.

 

Mistakes do and always will happen.... Darwin or Murphy, one of them is gonna get you. :ph34r:

 

All falling asleep !?! On A Melges 24 !?! A pure racing boat with all racing sailors ?! Says it not true !... That can ~never~ happen ! Mistakes such as this can ~never~ happen on a racing boat ! This can only happen to cruisers or ones aboard a Benihuntlina :blink: (rolling eyes and dripping with sarcasm....lol..... just a tweak at those snobs that keep writing on here disparaging remarks about 'kroozers')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"How 'bout those numbers on a sign on the rail? What's up with that? Pretending to be a LD racer? No numbers on the sail, hence no PH rating? No, you won't find anyone experinced putting numbers on a sign on the rail. Sorry." DoRag

I know someone will pipe up to call you a dumbass on this. I will not as you may not know the purpose... It has nothing to do with the crew or captain's experience level.

It is likely those numbers were required by the Race Committee for check in purposes and for the start and finish of the race. I have been in many races requiring all entrants to display their hull/sail numbers on the large display sign on the rail for the start and finish of the race. The sign is removed shortly after the start and re-displayed at the time of finish. I hear (though I do not know every race out there) that it is quite common.

 

 

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh......nope!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the ensign is way out of proportion for the length of the vessel,

 

Wow -- now that is 'picking nits'

 

Maybe they lost theirs sailing the week before, and borrowed one from a buddy with a bigger boat for the race...... who the heck knows, but that would be the last reason to question his skills

 

Au Contraire!

 

Not a nit at all - for an experienced sailor. Which, of course, was my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . The radio would be on either Channel 16 or 68 listening to the chatter from other boats in the race. . .

 

Have I been missing out on something all these years? We keep our VHF on 16 and almost never hear a transmission from competitors. What are these racers chattering about?

 

It's because there are so many inexperienced racers out there - many cruisers, who think it's OK to chat away on Ch 16. They don't know any better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not comprehend the naysayers that feel "something" happened other than them falling asleep on watch. I personaly know of a Melgi 24 that was doing the N2E about 6-8 years ago where ALL the crew fell asleep on deck during the drifters in the evening. Somebody finaly woke up when they were about 1/4 mile off the beach near Salaspudies.

 

Mistakes do and always will happen.... Darwin or Murphy, one of them is gonna get you. :ph34r:

 

Really? I was part of the team that won the race overall on a M24. Everyone sleeping? If so, they were idiots and deserved to be beached... and walk off, of course.

 

Two on, minimum, at all times.

 

Boobie Trap has Sunny Flapz on tonight. TNT tomorrow. Al is tending bah.

 

-Snap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four experienced sailors. All the latest state-of-the-art electronics: Radar, MARPA, GPS, SPOT, VHF, AIS, Autopilot, EPIRB and for sure a compass. A brand new engine that kept working right up to hitting the island. Functioning SPOT that sent "OK' messages right up to 7:00 but nothing after that and which also kept working right up to hitting the island. Slight course adjustment around 10:00 but no messages sent on the SPOT. Both the SPOT and engine reached the island, so probably the boat and crew did too.

 

Anyone with all those toys would be checking them and comparing them against the progress. He would have been checking the AIS app he had on his iPad, checking the GPS and radar, checking the compass to make sure the autopilot is doing its job. The radio would be on either Channel 16 or 68 listening to the chatter from other boats in the race. He would have been paying attention to how the new engine was working. They would have been checking the charts and what track they took when they won the race two previous times.

 

Even if there was a general failure of all the electronics, the compass would still work. The SPOT and iPad ran on batteries. They all had cell phones and weren't that far from land - 7 miles off shore and not that far from the border.

 

Finding the captain's body in the same general area as the other three more or less rules out that he fell overboard. A collision with another boat has been ruled out.

 

A plethoria of scenarios have been posed but none quite explains how that boat ran into that island. Even if they didn't see it by simply looking, the radar, GPS, MARPA and AIS would have seen it.

 

Wonder if they'll ever figure it out.

 

You say "four experienced" sailors. How do you know that?

 

It is very hard to me to understand how this could happen to an experienced crew. It just doesn't add up.

 

So, how do you know about the experience of these folks? According to the press, you have a few statements around that, but do the folks making those statements really understand what consitutes valid "experience?'

 

For example, note the former crew memeber that backed out. He said they previously "kicked ass" and won the Ensenada Race. Looking a bit deeper, we find they "won" the NASBOAT class. That certainly does not qualify for "experience," but will get you a cub scout merit badge.

 

As for the skipper's alleged CG 100T license, maybe, but let's wait for the investigation to validate that.

 

Let's look at the pics of the boat before the start. Anything peculiar there? Well, the ensign is way out of proportion for the length of the vessel, thereby breaking a very, very longstanding naval tradition. an experienced person would see that in a heartbeat. How 'bout those numbers on a sign on the rail? What's up with that? Pretending to be a LD racer? No numbers on the sail, hence no PH rating? No, you won't find anyone experinced putting numbers on a sign on the rail. Sorry.

 

So, let's wait for the outcome of the investigation before concluding they were experienced in a revelvant way.

 

 

i've seen lot's of race boats with too small an ensign - in fact nearly every one

 

numbers on the lifelines - Cruising boats that race often do this. I'm pretty sure that the Marion-Bermuda Race requires it, even when the boat has sail numbers. the cloth is referred to as a "weathercloth", and is usually back at the cokpit.

 

003.JPG?width=737&height=523

 

 

You must be around a lot of cruisers...

 

Anyway, nope. Don't use numbers on lifelines - not cool in SoCal. Folks will laugh and point. Just as they do with those nimrods that don't know how to size an ensign.

 

All inexperienced, do not belong at sea, in the night, in commercial shipping lanes. It's dangerous...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is likely those numbers were required by the Race Committee for check in purposes and for the start and finish of the race. I have been in many races requiring all entrants to display their hull/sail numbers on the large display sign on the rail for the start and finish of the race. The sign is removed shortly after the start and re-displayed at the time of finish. I hear (though I do not know every race out there) that it is quite common.[/size]

[/color][/font]

Sorry but no. Check in is by hailing your "sail" number to the check in boat. NOSA allows boats in the NASBOAT class to display their "sail" numbers from the lifelines because many can't/don't want to have sail numbers put on their sails. Must be too expensive to have a sailmaker do that...it'd take money out of the fuel and autopilot funds.

 

Wow, that is odd, odd, odd. Well if that is the case for that race, I stand corrected.

 

 

Well, gee...fancy that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding numbers on weather cloths . . .

 

Newport to Bermuda race rule ;

 

"4.01.2 Sail numbers and letters of the size carried on the mainsail must be displayed by alternative means when none of the numbered sails is set."

 

Basically the idea is if you are bare pole or dis-masted or just under storm jib (with no numbers) they still want sail number displayed so the vessel can be identified. Sail numbers on weather cloths is the standard way to do that.

 

Clearly Dumb Rag is such an experienced offshore racer that he has never had to prep a boat to meet the Special Regs.

 

Excuse me, but this thread is about the Ensenada Rcae, not the Bermuda race. That thread is....over there. No go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say "four experienced" sailors. How do you know that?

All DoRag's points to support this are valid.

I was going to bring it up but decided it wasn't worth the pain it might cause the surviving family members.

 

Having talked with thousands of non-sailors over the years, I've come to disregard almost all of their observations about the ability of a skipper/crew and about wind and sea states.

 

"Experienced" means "Been to sea maybe an hour more than the person saying 'experienced'."

 

The amount of their sailing experience is largely irrelevant. Experience refers to the ability of a sailor to deal with adverse wind and sea conditions based on prior knowledge. In this case they were under power in relatively ideal wind and sea conditions with good visibility.

 

All we know for sure is that 9 sailors died last month on he west coast. This points out that life is uncertain and that the sea we all love can be cruel (sort of like a beautiful frigid woman). We should all be a little nicer to the people we meet and a little wamer to the people we love.

 

Really? "The amount of there sailing experience is irrelevant?"

 

Huh?

 

WTF?

 

Did I just read that?

 

Someone tell me that I didn't just read that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because there are so many inexperienced racers out there - many cruisers, who think it's OK to chat away on Ch 16. They don't know any better.

lol.gif

 

For those that might be inclined to take that post seriously, if you tried that in the vicinity of the Ensenada Race you would have Coast Guard Sector San Diego down your throat and chewing you a new asshole in about 2 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is likely those numbers were required by the Race Committee for check in purposes and for the start and finish of the race.

Or not. lol.gif

 

If you're going to make weird claims you JUST MIGHT want to, you know, look at the SIs, which are online, or looks at pictures of the other 215 boats...

 

Note, there are no weird claims here. Read my whole post. I clearly stated my case and I am not looking for a pissing match.

As for the SI's I also clearly stated that I was not familiar with the specifics of this race, just requirements of some of the races I have been a part of.

 

Side note, for a boat running the engine from 8pm until 8am, is it possible that the skipper put the numbers on the lifelines to be identifiable from a distance while sails are down? If this was the case, this is not a piece of evidence which would point to a lack of experience. There may be other things that may indicate lack of experience, but this ain't it!

 

The thing that might show the lack of experience would be setting a course which will track directly through a giant rock, whether you plan to be awake at the time you'd like to change course or not. This looks like the beginning of the whole series of unfortunate incidents.

 

Actually you challenged some of the thoughts posted, based up your experience in other races.

 

Nice.

 

Now, go away. No one gives a flying fuck about your experiences in other races.

 

WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might have simply been laid out on the seats looking up at the stars.

 

Seriously? Who in their right mind would lay down and look up at the stars in the middle of the night knowing they need to stay awake? Might as well take an Ambien too.

 

Geeze, and no particular offense to you Mark K, but so many of the comments on this thread leave me scratching my head wondering if the poster has even spent a single night at sea on a sailing yacht.

 

This is in particular offense to you. You are fucking stupid for believing shit like that doesn't happen. A complete idiot. I doubt you have ever even seen a boat.

 

The guy is a troll. Why respond to him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boat owner, Theo Mavromatis, a licensed captain, was sailing in his 7th N2E race, winning his class twice, and he had been sailing since he was a little boy. The Aegean's crew had raced together four times and cruised for years together as well, one was reportedly doing his third N2E. There is really nothing to indicate that a lack of experience was a factor, including the fact that this cruz boat carried its numbers on a weather cloth rather than on a sail. Back when there were 500 or 600 boats in the race this was a lot more common, but you still see boats in the cruz classes doing this. Indeed, check out the pictures linked from the NOSA site.

 

The N2E is a fun race with an emphasis on camaraderie. There is a serious competitive component, but most crews are primarily out to have a good time. It might seem lame but this is why the cruz classes began to be allowed to use their engines a few years ago. With So Cal's notoriously light air at night, too many crews were missing the Sunday night party, and even missing the Monday cutoff. Not much camaraderie to be found while bobbing around off Puerto Nuevo during the awards ceremony. Still, the experience level is generally high and in support of this it should be noted once again that these are the first fatalities in the race's 65 year history.

 

It's hard to imagine the entire crew falling asleep while the boat continued on autopilot directly into N. Coronado, but this is the simplest and therefore most likely explanation.

 

It's not hard to imagine. People fall asleep flying airplanes. Driving cars. The problem of night watches falling asleep or becoming extremely inattentive is a well known problem, especially when just monitoring a system and not actively operating it.

 

Might have simply been laid out on the seats looking up at the stars.

 

 

Well, it's hard for me to imagine all four falling asleep since I have little trouble pulling an all-nighter on an overnight race or cruise. I'm always so excited to be at sea that on night one my problem is usually the opposite of being sleepy. My experience has also been that it's not just me, my fellow crewmembers are usually also excited and motivated to stay awake. I've never been on an overnight race where everybody, or even anybody, was particularly anxious to hit the sack. You don't race N2E to catch up on your sleep, and again, it seems hard to believe that out of four avid sailors, not one was able to stay awake and/or attentive, and yet I think we agree that they all fell asleep is the most likely explanation.

 

No one gives a fuck about what you believe or don't believe.

 

I hope DM sues you for being such an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, we all see things through our own filters, and as I said, it’s hard for me to imagine all four falling asleep since I have little trouble pulling an all-nighter on an overnight race or cruise. I’m always so excited to be at sea that on night one my problem is usually the opposite of being sleepy. My experience has also been that it's not just me, my fellow crewmembers are usually also excited and motivated to stay awake. I've never been on an overnight race where everybody, or even anybody, was particularly anxious to hit the sack. You don't race N2E to catch up on your sleep, and again, it seems hard to believe that out of four avid sailors, not one was able to stay awake and/or attentive, and yet I think we agree that they all fell asleep is the most likely explanation.

Indeed, we all see things through our own filters.

 

Re: your experience of being excited and motivated to stay awake all night is good, but to 50-year-olds accustomed to going to bed much earlier, it is very common for that excitement and motivation to wear off after just a few hours past their normal bed-time. And when that excitement wears off, the crash is frequently sudden and deep. My experiences, my filters.

 

And, eyeneversayno, don't forget that through the night they were not sailing, they were motoring, apparently under autopilot. At this point, the excitement level of the crew was probably more on the order of that associated with a delivery rather than that of being in a race.

 

I've done an overnight delivery (under sail) where all three of my crew, younger guys than I, all fell asleep.

 

That all four on the Aegean fell asleep is entirely plausible, and seems to me the most likely explanation (combined with the "obstruction disappearing on zoom out" navigational problem).

 

Well, remember taht the crewmember who bailed noted that they "kicked ass" in the NASBOAT class, so it would be safe to assume that they were racing hard, trying to "kick some more ass," albeit under power...

 

Did I really just say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Excuse me, but this thread is about the Ensenada Rcae, not the Bermuda race. That thread is....over there. No go there.

 

 

I'm confused,do you want him to go or not?C'mon spelling nazi get it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might have simply been laid out on the seats looking up at the stars.

 

Seriously? Who in their right mind would lay down and look up at the stars in the middle of the night knowing they need to stay awake? Might as well take an Ambien too.

 

Geeze, and no particular offense to you Mark K, but so many of the comments on this thread leave me scratching my head wondering if the poster has even spent a single night at sea on a sailing yacht.

 

This is in particular offense to you. You are fucking stupid for believing shit like that doesn't happen. A complete idiot. I doubt you have ever even seen a boat.

 

The guy is a troll. Why respond to him?

 

Thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Rag I gotta ask, what do you think happened? I mean what one or two things or events do you think happened that night that caused that to happen. I know you don't know, but from what facts we do know I am sure you have a theory or two..... You seem to have strong opinions on a few things...;-)...

 

And no fair just saying they were "inexperienced" or they had too small an ensign and that caused it..... Be specific on what you think happened -- if you think it could be one of two things then throw them out there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Rousmaniere user_offline.gifContributing Authors

Join Date: Jan 2000

Posts: 135Rep Power: 13

reputation_pos.gif

The Art and Science of Standing Watch

 

090800_jr_jr2.jpg

Offshore sailors are only "uncivilized" if their watch systems don't work.

It was in a junk shop in Newport, RI, where I found a drawing of a ferocious-looking Teuton who growls, "Can't understand these uncivilized fellows who go out of sight of land and sleep on board and don't wash and all that!" This cartoon now hangs in my house because I'm one of those offshore sailors who struggles to keep myself and my surroundings civilized. Washing up, picking up, and eating proper meals—all are crucial to a happy cruise or race, and all demand care and attention.

 

 

However, what's most important is that the crew get their sleep. Tired people don't attend to details very well. They also make dumb mistakes, whether they're installing software, driving a car, or sailing. Exhausted sailors steer the wrong course, forget to clip on safety harnesses, cleat lines carelessly, and light the oven without due regard for propane's potential to blow everything and everybody to smithereens. You name a mistake in a boat and a tired person has made it.

 

The macho attitudes that prevail in many crews ignore the proven fact that humans need rest if they are to function responsibly. Muscles require it, but surely the brain needs it even more. Rest and sleep are of utmost importance to skippers, watch captains, navigators, and others who must make decisions. A psychiatrist who specializes in the treatment of military veterans, Jonathan Shay, in an article in the journal Parameters (Summer 1998), emphasizes the great danger of regarding sleep stoically as an act of self-indulgence. He writes:

"Sleep deprivation, in particular, promotes:

Catastrophic operational failure.

Fratricide and other accidental deaths.

Otherwise preventable non-combatant casualties.

Loss of emotional control and failure of complex social judgment—often the proximal causes of operational failure."

 

If that's true for the commanders of naval and military units, it's certainly true for the leaders of crews of pleasure boats, even in relatively easy conditions.

 

In whatever way possible, the off-watch should get the rest it needs.

The benefit of a rested crew is hardly a new discovery. In the early nineteenth century, the Royal Navy suffered from exhausted crews as well as poor discipline, unwashed sailors, filthy ships, rampant disease, and high mortality (even in peacetime). At mid-century, the navy addressed these problems in a number of reforms, among them a radical change in the system of assigning and standing watches. Until then, crews were divided into two watches. The starboard watch was on deck for four hours before it was replaced by the port watch, which took the next four hours, and then back to the starboard watch, and so on. The captain, the cook, and a few others who had full-time responsibilities were exempted, but otherwise the crew spent 12 hours sailing.

 

The navy replaced this traditional "watch-on-watch" system with another one that (reportedly) was first tried by Captain James Cook during his voyages in the Pacific. Here, the crew was divided not into halves but into thirds. Instead of two watches there were three, and instead of 12 hours of sailing there were eight. For every hour Jack Tar spent on watch, he had two hours off, which allowed more time for sleep, relaxation, meals, maintenance of personal gear, and cleaning the ship. Rested sailors, it turned out, were cleaner, healthier sailors. Shipboard mortality rates subsequently fell dramatically. There were other causes (including advances in medicine and the rise of captains who were alert to them), but considerable credit was given to the new watch-keeping regime that produced rested sailors. (My source is Christopher Lloyd and Jack L.S. Coulter's fascinating four-volume Medicine and the Navy, 1200-1900.)

 

That experience should inspire some reflection by sailors heading out overnight or even on short runs in wet, cold, or rough conditions. But before examining alternatives in watch organization, let's see how a watch works.

 

The watch systems we use today evolved from those used aboard ships in the classic era of sailing.

As in ships of war, not everybody has to stand watch. In boats with large crews or high ambitions for racing success, the cooks, skippers, navigators, or gifted helmsmen may stand out (keep their own schedule), and come on deck as they please. They are the vessel's royalty. The working stiffs are divided into scheduled, organized watches. The head, called the watch captain, should be the most experienced, knowledgeable sailor on deck and also a good leader. While individual watch members must be prepared to perform any necessary task, the watch captain appoints them to specific jobs according to their skills and aptitudes. Someone prone to seasickness should not be assigned to wash dishes.There's a well-tested routine for the change of the watch. The members of the new watch are roused by the old, off-going watch in time for them to get dressed, have a cup of coffee or a snack, and go on deck with a few minutes left over so they can gain a feel for the conditions, develop night vision (if necessary), and be briefed about the boat's position, nearby vessels, and the weather. A watch change takes at least 20 minutes in rough weather (when foul-weather gear and safety harnesses must be put on) and 10 minutes in good weather. You don't do the other watch a favor by letting them sleep a little longer, for they'll have to rush to get on deck in time. It's rude to your shipmates to be late getting on deck. And it's dangerous and rude for the off-going watch to leave important chores (like changing sails) to the oncoming watch, whose coordination and alertness will revive slowly.

 

Regardless of the weather, as soon as the new watch is settled down they should inspect the sails and recoil and recleat all halyards and sheets to make sure there are no kinks in the lines. The new watch should never assume that the old watch made no mistakes. (Obviously, we're talking about normal cruising and racing. On the most intense racing boats, the off-watch doesn't go below but, instead, rides the windward rail. They're even more uncivilized than the fellows that the Teutonic critic in my cartoon was frothing about.)

 

 

Rough weather and a poor watch schedule can leave crews exhausted and unready for duty.

The length of a watch is guided by accepted rules of thumb about time and effectiveness. The length of an average professional baseball game is a good guide: three to four hours. Most us can't function well at a high level for much longer than about five hours without a break. And most of us also require six to eight hours of sleep in a 24-hour stretch—even more when under physical and mental duress.

 

Sleep may be a loose term aboard a moving boat. In my experience, there's not much real sleep the first night out when my system is adapting to new conditions. But that's no excuse not to lie down when off watch early in a passage. Rest is almost as good as sleep. On the second night I'm usually sleeping fairly well, and on the third I'm enveloped by Morpheus.

 

Here are four successful watch systems, using a six-person crew as an example. They can be used throughout a passage, or they can be alternated with changing conditions.

 

Watch-on-watch with regular hours Here we have the classic arrangement of two watches, traditionally called "starboard" and "port," standing back to back. In this schedule, each three-person watch is on deck for four hours, then off-watch for four hours before coming back up. This is called four-on-four-off.

 

black_1pix.gif"Sleep may be a loose term aboard a moving boat, but rest is almost as good as sleep."black_1pix.gifWhile easy to arrange, this system can be exhausting, and unless the boat has a full-time cook and navigator, those chores may be neglected. Another problem is that the system regards all watches as equally demanding; the dark mid watch (midnight to 0400, or 4:00 a.m.) is no shorter than the sunny afternoon watch. This last problem can be addressed by shortening the night watches to three hours. In fine weather, the morning or afternoon watches may be lengthened to six hours, though that stretch challenges the limits of human effectiveness.Any schedule whose total number of watches is divisible into 24 (for instance, six, four-hour watches or eight, three-hour watches) will repeat itself day after day, leaving the same people to face the same grim mid watch, night after night. In order to adjust the schedule, most boats "dog" the 1600-2000 (4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) watch, meaning that it's cut in half with each watching taking two hours instead of the usual four. (That's a good time for the two watches to socialize.)

 

Watch-on-watch—the Swedish system The Swedish watch system also splits the crew in half, but uses an irregular schedule to balance the varying demands of different times of day. Beginning at 1900 hours (7:00 p.m.), the watches run on this schedule: five hours, four hours (mid watch), four hours, five hours, and six hours (afternoon watch). This system dogs itself automatically.

 

Three watches Here we have the system that the Royal Navy instituted to allow the crew more time off to rest and clean ship. Each watch of two people (in our example) is on deck for three or four hours-with six or eight hours off, respectively. Splitting the crew into thirds is effective on passages when not much sail handling is called for. One watch below must be on standby, ready to come on deck in a moment. If there are a lot of maneuvers or you're setting spinnakers, you'll need more people on deck almost all the time.

 

Individual rotations As Monty Python used to say, "Now for something completely different." In the individual rotation system, only one sailor is replaced, and then at hourly intervals. In a crew of six, three are on watch at all times. But instead of changing as a group, a single fresh body comes on deck each hour. In the recent Newport to Bermuda Race aboard Kirawan, our crew of seven used a three-hour, individual-rotation system with three sailors on deck at a time. That meant each of us stood watch for three hours, then was off-watch for four hours. That was a nice balance in a four-day, somewhat undemanding passage.

 

The individual rotation system has its advantages and also its disadvantages. Its pluses include providing a broader range of sociability and also less crowding below at the watch change—a boon in a small cabin). But with people constantly coming and going, sailors can lose track of where they fit in the rotation and whom they're meant to wake up. Even if they know who follows them, they may not know where to find their replacements unless there's a bunk for each crew member.

 

Another problem with this system is that responsibilities for certain jobs may go begging. There are so many combinations of people that chores like cooking and washing-up may be left unassigned, and a careless crew may turn into the "uncivilized fellows" that our Teutonic friend complained about. That won't be a problem if the sailors (like my friends on Kirawan) care about their shipmates and their vessel, and take the time to wash a dish, wipe up a spill, and clean the head when the problem first surfaces, instead of waiting for the other guy to pick up the mess. At the heart of good seamanship always lies the rule "one hand for yourself, one hand for the ship."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Rag I gotta ask, what do you think happened? I mean what one or two things or events do you think happened that night that caused that to happen. I know you don't know, but from what facts we do know I am sure you have a theory or two..... You seem to have strong opinions on a few things...;-)...

 

And no fair just saying they were "inexperienced" or they had too small an ensign and that caused it..... Be specific on what you think happened -- if you think it could be one of two things then throw them out there....

 

Well, I have tried to stay away from conjecture and keep my comments directed toward defining issues and gaining more insights.

 

Based upon what little we know, I would hypothecate that: (1) the crew, as a whole, were not all exerienced; (2) the watch at the time of the incident did not have adequate experience; (3) someone just dialed in the rhumb line to the entry to Bahia Todos Santos (without due regard to the island that was in the way); (4) the motor was on, the autopilot was on; (5) the watch either fell asleep or fell overboard - the others slept below; and (6) KABOOM!

 

The theory that a course was set, with the intention of later changing it, doesn't seem to make sense as, once the decision was made to motor, the shortest course would have been to motor along the hypotenuse of the triangle, rather than head for the island with the intent of later changing it (hence motoring a longer course). The tracking device seems to be rather good evidence that the N. Coronado was ran into, as opposed to a collision with a larger vessel. The CO theory is nonsense as Aegean had a diesel engine and an open cockpit on three sides.

 

The fact is that the Coronados are large islands, but at times, can be hard to see. When oriented against the lights of SD, they are rather obvious. From another angle, the beach is just as dark between S SD and TJ. So that would be a blind spot. What is most disconcerting is that everyone knows those islands are gnarly, with currents and surge and giant flies, and that they are, more or less, on the rhumb between NB and Ensenada Bay. Now, knowing that, any skipper (or navigator) needs to make the crew aware that they will be closing on these islands at X time. And warn the crew to be on the look out for them beginning, say, an hour before. Or check it out on the radar. Whatever. Frankly, it is a real disaster for this to happen and NOSA best review the qualifications of racers, hold seminars, etc. This is unacceptable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because there are so many inexperienced racers out there - many cruisers, who think it's OK to chat away on Ch 16. They don't know any better.

lol.gif

 

For those that might be inclined to take that post seriously, if you tried that in the vicinity of the Ensenada Race you would have Coast Guard Sector San Diego down your throat and chewing you a new asshole in about 2 seconds.

 

Something new?

 

Did you listen to the chatter that night?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Rag I gotta ask, what do you think happened? I mean what one or two things or events do you think happened that night that caused that to happen. I know you don't know, but from what facts we do know I am sure you have a theory or two..... You seem to have strong opinions on a few things...;-)...

 

And no fair just saying they were "inexperienced" or they had too small an ensign and that caused it..... Be specific on what you think happened -- if you think it could be one of two things then throw them out there....

 

Well, I have tried to stay away from conjecture and keep my comments directed toward defining issues and gaining more knowledge.

 

Based upon what little we know, I would hypothecate that: (1) the crew were not all exerienced; (2) the watch did not have adequate experience; (3) someone just dialed in the rhumb line to the entry to Bahia Todos Santos (without due regard to the island that was in the way); (4) the motor was on, the autopilot was on; (5) the watch either fell asleep or fell overboard - the others slept below; and (6) KABOOM!

 

The theory that a course was set with the intention of later changing it doesn't seem to make sense as, once the decision was made to motor, the shortest course would have been to motor along the hypotenuse of the triangle, rather than head for the island with the intent of later changing it (hence motoring a longer course). The tracking device seems to be rather good evidence that the N. Coronado was ran into, as opposed to a collision with a larger vessel. The CO theory is nonsense as Aegean had a diesel engine and n open cockpit on three sides.

 

The fact is that the Coronados are large islands, but at times, can be hard to see. When oriented against the lights of SD, they are rather ovious. From another angle, the beach is just as dark between S SD and TJ. So that would be a blind spot. What is most disconcerting is that everyone knows those islands are gnarly, with currents and surge, and that they are, more or less on the rhumb between NB and Ensenada Bay. Now, knowing that, any skipper (or navigator) needs to make the crew aware that they will be closing on these islands at X time. And be on the look out for them beginning, say, an hour before. Or check it out on the radar. Whatever. Frankly, it is a real disaster for this to happen and NOSA best review the qualifications of racers, hold seminars, etc. This is unacceptable!

 

Thank you -- a well reasoned response and actually somewhat what I would think happened after reviewing and hashing out things the last few days.

 

LOL.....Though you couldn't help yourself and wrote " (1) the crew were not all exerienced; (2) the watch did not have adequate experience;" when those are judgments on them and not "events or actions" that caused their fate.

 

I understand the falling asleep part, but I still am trying to get my head around " that a course was set" and that it would be right in the middle of the Island as shown by the GPS. That just makes no sense. While they are still up and awake why would they set the course for smack dab in the middle of the island ??

 

And lets give the skipper some credit, the reality is he'd been down this way many times before , he knows there are Islands there, why would he or anyone set a course anywhere near them ?! (thats the part that makes just no sense, unless his electronics were giving him messed up readings) But I can see the point about not seeing those islands very well at night and the lights from land making it tough. I hate coming in at night even into my own well known harbor, I find it very difficult with all the background lights..

 

 

ps and if he did " make the crew aware that they will be closing on these islands at X time. And be on the look out for them beginning, say, an hour before." then maybe they all were just asleep :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not comprehend the naysayers that feel "something" happened other than them falling asleep on watch. I personaly know of a Melgi 24 that was doing the N2E about 6-8 years ago where ALL the crew fell asleep on deck during the drifters in the evening. Somebody finaly woke up when they were about 1/4 mile off the beach near Salaspudies.

 

Mistakes do and always will happen.... Darwin or Murphy, one of them is gonna get you. :ph34r:

 

Been there, done that, the whole crew, including the helmsman.

 

Drifting around with little to no wind is the equivalent of being hove-to in order to get some sleep while singlehanding. This is very different from motoring along under autopilot at 6 to 7 knots into the darkness.

 

Still, the point about Darwin and Murphy extends beyond the above apples to oranges example. Shit does indeed happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And lets give the skipper some credit, the reality is he'd been down this way many times before , he knows there are Islands there, why would he or anyone set a course anywhere near them ?!

 

Well, a possible area of mistake is that sometimes on giving a task to a less experienced person, you think to yourself whether you are going to check his work, or are you going to show him you now have confidence in him. (For example on a theory that even if he has screwed up, you have a backup plan, such as detecting the islands as you approach them, if you do.)

 

Maybe the skipper retired early prior to this course being set -- we cannot know, and there could be reasons making this more likely than it ordinarily would be -- and those remaining really had no idea that a rhumb line would take them near or through the islands.

 

Or maybe he asked a less experienced crew member to verify that the course didn't go through the islands, and said less-experienced crew answered it's fine. (Whether from the zoom theory, or some other error.) And the skipper didn't check himself, whether for the above reason, some other reason, or no reason.

 

We don't know those details. We know only that the course was set and followed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding numbers on weather cloths . . .

 

Newport to Bermuda race rule ;

 

"4.01.2 Sail numbers and letters of the size carried on the mainsail must be displayed by alternative means when none of the numbered sails is set."

 

Basically the idea is if you are bare pole or dis-masted or just under storm jib (with no numbers) they still want sail number displayed so the vessel can be identified. Sail numbers on weather cloths is the standard way to do that.

 

Clearly Dumb Rag is such an experienced offshore racer that he has never had to prep a boat to meet the Special Regs.

 

Excuse me, but this thread is about the Ensenada Rcae, not the Bermuda race. That thread is....over there. No go there.

 

It is an ISAF OSR requirement for Cat 1-4, and in the NOR this race recommended the sailors follow ISAF cat 3. So, by using weather cloth's these sailors were simply following the recommended (but not required) equipment rules for the race.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And lets give the skipper some credit, the reality is he'd been down this way many times before , he knows there are Islands there, why would he or anyone set a course anywhere near them ?!

 

Well, a possible area of mistake is that sometimes on giving a task to a less experienced person, you think to yourself whether you are going to check his work, or are you going to show him you now have confidence in him. (For example on a theory that even if he has screwed up, you have a backup plan, such as detecting the islands as you approach them, if you do.)

 

Maybe the skipper retired early prior to this course being set -- we cannot know, and there could be reasons making this more likely than it ordinarily would be -- and those remaining really had no idea that a rhumb line would take them near or through the islands.

 

Or maybe he asked a less experienced crew member to verify that the course didn't go through the islands, and said less-experienced crew answered it's fine. (Whether from the zoom theory, or some other error.) And the skipper didn't check himself, whether for the above reason, some other reason, or no reason.

 

We don't know those details. We know only that the course was set and followed.

 

I like this ! Well thought out and reasoned responses

 

WITHOUT insults.....lol

 

(ps -- all that makes sense above)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Rag I gotta ask, what do you think happened? I mean what one or two things or events do you think happened that night that caused that to happen. I know you don't know, but from what facts we do know I am sure you have a theory or two..... You seem to have strong opinions on a few things...;-)...

 

And no fair just saying they were "inexperienced" or they had too small an ensign and that caused it..... Be specific on what you think happened -- if you think it could be one of two things then throw them out there....

 

Well, I have tried to stay away from conjecture and keep my comments directed toward defining issues and gaining more knowledge.

 

Based upon what little we know, I would hypothecate that: (1) the crew were not all exerienced; (2) the watch did not have adequate experience; (3) someone just dialed in the rhumb line to the entry to Bahia Todos Santos (without due regard to the island that was in the way); (4) the motor was on, the autopilot was on; (5) the watch either fell asleep or fell overboard - the others slept below; and (6) KABOOM!

 

The theory that a course was set with the intention of later changing it doesn't seem to make sense as, once the decision was made to motor, the shortest course would have been to motor along the hypotenuse of the triangle, rather than head for the island with the intent of later changing it (hence motoring a longer course). The tracking device seems to be rather good evidence that the N. Coronado was ran into, as opposed to a collision with a larger vessel. The CO theory is nonsense as Aegean had a diesel engine and n open cockpit on three sides.

 

The fact is that the Coronados are large islands, but at times, can be hard to see. When oriented against the lights of SD, they are rather ovious. From another angle, the beach is just as dark between S SD and TJ. So that would be a blind spot. What is most disconcerting is that everyone knows those islands are gnarly, with currents and surge, and that they are, more or less on the rhumb between NB and Ensenada Bay. Now, knowing that, any skipper (or navigator) needs to make the crew aware that they will be closing on these islands at X time. And be on the look out for them beginning, say, an hour before. Or check it out on the radar. Whatever. Frankly, it is a real disaster for this to happen and NOSA best review the qualifications of racers, hold seminars, etc. This is unacceptable!

 

Thank you -- a well reasoned response and actually somewhat what I would think happened after reviewing and hashing out things the last few days.

 

LOL.....Though you couldn't help yourself and wrote " (1) the crew were not all exerienced; (2) the watch did not have adequate experience;" when those are judgments on them and not "events or actions" that caused their fate.

 

I understand the falling asleep part, but I still am trying to get my head around " that a course was set" and that it would be right in the middle of the Island as shown by the GPS. That just makes no sense. While they are still up and awake why would they set the course for smack dab in the middle of the island ??

 

And lets give the skipper some credit, the reality is he'd been down this way many times before , he knows there are Islands there, why would he or anyone set a course anywhere near them ?! (thats the part that makes just no sense, unless his electronics were giving him messed up readings) But I can see the point about not seeing those islands very well at night and the lights from land making it tough. I hate coming in at night even into my own well known harbor, I find it very difficult with all the background lights..

 

 

ps and if he did " make the crew aware that they will be closing on these islands at X time. And be on the look out for them beginning, say, an hour before." then maybe they all were just asleep :unsure:

 

Actually, the comment on experience relates to being aware that they would be in the proximity of a very dangerous place and be on the look out for it. Or the apparent setting of a course to head for it and assume you will change it later. I don't get that either, which could underscore the theory of experience. Let's all agree that something did happen. And that running into an island is generally an avoidable event.

 

Anyway, we will all know someday about the level of experience of this group. Unfortunately, we will probably never know what exactly transpied.

 

Fact is that the Coronados are on the edge of an escarpment, which usually accelerates the current when flowing N/S. Some experienced sailors, when in a position near those islands will try to make use of that to win the race. But it can be dangerous at night and it's all hands on deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, it is a real disaster for this to happen and NOSA best review the qualifications of racers, hold seminars, etc. This is unacceptable!

 

LOL

 

A "real disaster," the first fatalities in the 65 year history of N2E!

 

Unacceptable!

 

NOSA should hold seminars educating racers about the need to stand watch and avoid driving their boats into dark islands in the middle of the night!!! Maybe then it'll be one hundred years before the next N2E fatality! Now that would be real progress!

 

 

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four experienced sailors. All the latest state-of-the-art electronics: Radar, MARPA, GPS, SPOT, VHF, AIS, Autopilot, EPIRB and for sure a compass. A brand new engine that kept working right up to hitting the island. Functioning SPOT that sent "OK' messages right up to 7:00 but nothing after that and which also kept working right up to hitting the island. Slight course adjustment around 10:00 but no messages sent on the SPOT. Both the SPOT and engine reached the island, so probably the boat and crew did too.

 

Anyone with all those toys would be checking them and comparing them against the progress. He would have been checking the AIS app he had on his iPad, checking the GPS and radar, checking the compass to make sure the autopilot is doing its job. The radio would be on either Channel 16 or 68 listening to the chatter from other boats in the race. He would have been paying attention to how the new engine was working. They would have been checking the charts and what track they took when they won the race two previous times.

 

Even if there was a general failure of all the electronics, the compass would still work. The SPOT and iPad ran on batteries. They all had cell phones and weren't that far from land - 7 miles off shore and not that far from the border.

 

Finding the captain's body in the same general area as the other three more or less rules out that he fell overboard. A collision with another boat has been ruled out.

 

A plethoria of scenarios have been posed but none quite explains how that boat ran into that island. Even if they didn't see it by simply looking, the radar, GPS, MARPA and AIS would have seen it.

 

Wonder if they'll ever figure it out.

 

You say "four experienced" sailors. How do you know that?

 

It is very hard to me to understand how this could happen to an experienced crew. It just doesn't add up.

 

So, how do you know about the experience of these folks? According to the press, you have a few statements around that, but do the folks making those statements really understand what consitutes valid "experience?'

 

For example, note the former crew memeber that backed out. He said they previously "kicked ass" and won the Ensenada Race. Looking a bit deeper, we find they "won" the NASBOAT class. That certainly does not qualify for "experience," but will get you a cub scout merit badge.

 

As for the skipper's alleged CG 100T license, maybe, but let's wait for the investigation to validate that.

 

Let's look at the pics of the boat before the start. Anything peculiar there? Well, the ensign is way out of proportion for the length of the vessel, thereby breaking a very, very longstanding naval tradition. an experienced person would see that in a heartbeat. How 'bout those numbers on a sign on the rail? What's up with that? Pretending to be a LD racer? No numbers on the sail, hence no PH rating? No, you won't find anyone experinced putting numbers on a sign on the rail. Sorry.

 

So, let's wait for the outcome of the investigation before concluding they were experienced in a revelvant way.

 

 

i've seen lot's of race boats with too small an ensign - in fact nearly every one

 

numbers on the lifelines - Cruising boats that race often do this. I'm pretty sure that the Marion-Bermuda Race requires it, even when the boat has sail numbers. the cloth is referred to as a "weathercloth", and is usually back at the cokpit.

 

003.JPG?width=737&height=523

 

 

You must be around a lot of cruisers...

 

Anyway, nope. Don't use numbers on lifelines - not cool in SoCal. Folks will laugh and point. Just as they do with those nimrods that don't know how to size an ensign.

 

All inexperienced, do not belong at sea, in the night, in commercial shipping lanes. It's dangerous...

 

That has nothing to do with cruising boats. It has everything to do with storm sailing. When you shorten to storm sails or bare poles there are little or no sail numbers to identify the boat. Same with dis-masted yachts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say "four experienced" sailors. How do you know that?

All DoRag's points to support this are valid.

I was going to bring it up but decided it wasn't worth the pain it might cause the surviving family members.

 

Having talked with thousands of non-sailors over the years, I've come to disregard almost all of their observations about the ability of a skipper/crew and about wind and sea states.

 

"Experienced" means "Been to sea maybe an hour more than the person saying 'experienced'."

 

The amount of their sailing experience is largely irrelevant. Experience refers to the ability of a sailor to deal with adverse wind and sea conditions based on prior knowledge. In this case they were under power in relatively ideal wind and sea conditions with good visibility.

 

All we know for sure is that 9 sailors died last month on he west coast. This points out that life is uncertain and that the sea we all love can be cruel (sort of like a beautiful frigid woman). We should all be a little nicer to the people we meet and a little wamer to the people we love.

 

Yes, you read that Charlie Brown. They were powering not sailing.

 

Really? "The amount of there sailing experience is irrelevant?"

 

Huh?

 

WTF?

 

Did I just read that?

 

Someone tell me that I didn't just read that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, it is a real disaster for this to happen and NOSA best review the qualifications of racers, hold seminars, etc. This is unacceptable!

 

LOL

 

A "real disaster," the first fatalities in the 65 year history of N2E!

 

Unacceptable!

 

NOSA should hold seminars educating racers about the need to stand watch and avoid driving their boats into dark islands in the middle of the night!!! Maybe then it'll be one hundred years before the next N2E fatality! Now that would be real progress!

 

 

 

LOL

 

Well, it appeares that you do not understand that NOSA substantially changed the character of the Ensenada Race when they encouraged and promoted the NASBOAT class.

 

Hence the reference to the previous 60 years would be called a non-sequitur.

 

Now, why is it that you did not know that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four experienced sailors. All the latest state-of-the-art electronics: Radar, MARPA, GPS, SPOT, VHF, AIS, Autopilot, EPIRB and for sure a compass. A brand new engine that kept working right up to hitting the island. Functioning SPOT that sent "OK' messages right up to 7:00 but nothing after that and which also kept working right up to hitting the island. Slight course adjustment around 10:00 but no messages sent on the SPOT. Both the SPOT and engine reached the island, so probably the boat and crew did too.

 

Anyone with all those toys would be checking them and comparing them against the progress. He would have been checking the AIS app he had on his iPad, checking the GPS and radar, checking the compass to make sure the autopilot is doing its job. The radio would be on either Channel 16 or 68 listening to the chatter from other boats in the race. He would have been paying attention to how the new engine was working. They would have been checking the charts and what track they took when they won the race two previous times.

 

Even if there was a general failure of all the electronics, the compass would still work. The SPOT and iPad ran on batteries. They all had cell phones and weren't that far from land - 7 miles off shore and not that far from the border.

 

Finding the captain's body in the same general area as the other three more or less rules out that he fell overboard. A collision with another boat has been ruled out.

 

A plethoria of scenarios have been posed but none quite explains how that boat ran into that island. Even if they didn't see it by simply looking, the radar, GPS, MARPA and AIS would have seen it.

 

Wonder if they'll ever figure it out.

 

You say "four experienced" sailors. How do you know that?

 

It is very hard to me to understand how this could happen to an experienced crew. It just doesn't add up.

 

So, how do you know about the experience of these folks? According to the press, you have a few statements around that, but do the folks making those statements really understand what consitutes valid "experience?'

 

For example, note the former crew memeber that backed out. He said they previously "kicked ass" and won the Ensenada Race. Looking a bit deeper, we find they "won" the NASBOAT class. That certainly does not qualify for "experience," but will get you a cub scout merit badge.

 

As for the skipper's alleged CG 100T license, maybe, but let's wait for the investigation to validate that.

 

Let's look at the pics of the boat before the start. Anything peculiar there? Well, the ensign is way out of proportion for the length of the vessel, thereby breaking a very, very longstanding naval tradition. an experienced person would see that in a heartbeat. How 'bout those numbers on a sign on the rail? What's up with that? Pretending to be a LD racer? No numbers on the sail, hence no PH rating? No, you won't find anyone experinced putting numbers on a sign on the rail. Sorry.

 

So, let's wait for the outcome of the investigation before concluding they were experienced in a revelvant way.

 

 

i've seen lot's of race boats with too small an ensign - in fact nearly every one

 

numbers on the lifelines - Cruising boats that race often do this. I'm pretty sure that the Marion-Bermuda Race requires it, even when the boat has sail numbers. the cloth is referred to as a "weathercloth", and is usually back at the cokpit.

 

003.JPG?width=737&height=523

 

 

You must be around a lot of cruisers...

 

Anyway, nope. Don't use numbers on lifelines - not cool in SoCal. Folks will laugh and point. Just as they do with those nimrods that don't know how to size an ensign.

 

All inexperienced, do not belong at sea, in the night, in commercial shipping lanes. It's dangerous...

 

That has nothing to do with cruising boats. It has everything to do with storm sailing. When you shorten to storm sails or bare poles there are little or no sail numbers to identify the boat. Same with dis-masted yachts.

 

So, you're saying that going in the Ensenada Race is like storm sailing? Really?

 

Are you aware in the 65 years of the race there has never been a recorded incident of anyone having actually reefed a sail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding numbers on weather cloths . . .

 

Newport to Bermuda race rule ;

 

"4.01.2 Sail numbers and letters of the size carried on the mainsail must be displayed by alternative means when none of the numbered sails is set."

 

Basically the idea is if you are bare pole or dis-masted or just under storm jib (with no numbers) they still want sail number displayed so the vessel can be identified. Sail numbers on weather cloths is the standard way to do that.

 

Clearly Dumb Rag is such an experienced offshore racer that he has never had to prep a boat to meet the Special Regs.

 

Excuse me, but this thread is about the Ensenada Rcae, not the Bermuda race. That thread is....over there. No go there.

 

It is an ISAF OSR requirement for Cat 1-4, and in the NOR this race recommended the sailors follow ISAF cat 3. So, by using weather cloth's these sailors were simply following the recommended (but not required) equipment rules for the race.

 

Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one gives a fuck about what you believe or don't believe.

 

Do...baby, you seem to like to think you're the spokesman for "the crowd". You ain't.

 

Or at least "the crowd" behind you is way smaller than you think. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of sailors have made it safely to Ensenada and beyond without the approval of NOSA or anyone else. Lexus or no Lexus, these guys wanted to sail to Ensenada. When the captain puts his ship to sea it's all him/her (and Murph and Darwin, but not NOSA), who has a hand in the end result. sad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of sailors have made it safely to Ensenada and beyond without the approval of NOSA or anyone else. Lexus or no Lexus, these guys wanted to sail to Ensenada. When the captain puts his ship to sea it's all him/her (and Murph and Darwin, but not NOSA), who has a hand in the end result. sad.gif

 

Best tell that to the courts - they might rule otherwise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one gives a fuck about what you believe or don't believe.

 

Do...baby, you seem to like to think you're the spokesman for "the crowd". You ain't.

 

Or at least "the crowd" behind you is way smaller than you think. Just sayin'.

 

No.

 

To think otherwise, means that I have been mistaken for someone who actually cares what most others think.

 

For those, God created the "ignore" button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LifeIsPain.gif

 

jus reminded me of this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of sailors have made it safely to Ensenada and beyond without the approval of NOSA or anyone else. Lexus or no Lexus, these guys wanted to sail to Ensenada. When the captain puts his ship to sea it's all him/her (and Murph and Darwin, but not NOSA), who has a hand in the end result. sad.gif

 

Best tell that to the courts - they might rule otherwise!

The courts didn't have anything to do with a boat getting some face time on an island. No court rooms or lawyers (at least I hope not) in DJL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Rag I gotta ask, what do you think happened? I mean what one or two things or events do you think happened that night that caused that to happen. I know you don't know, but from what facts we do know I am sure you have a theory or two..... You seem to have strong opinions on a few things...;-)...

 

And no fair just saying they were "inexperienced" or they had too small an ensign and that caused it..... Be specific on what you think happened -- if you think it could be one of two things then throw them out there....

 

Well, I have tried to stay away from conjecture and keep my comments directed toward defining issues and gaining more knowledge.

 

Based upon what little we know, I would hypothecate that: (1) the crew were not all exerienced; (2) the watch did not have adequate experience; (3) someone just dialed in the rhumb line to the entry to Bahia Todos Santos (without due regard to the island that was in the way); (4) the motor was on, the autopilot was on; (5) the watch either fell asleep or fell overboard - the others slept below; and (6) KABOOM!

 

The theory that a course was set with the intention of later changing it doesn't seem to make sense as, once the decision was made to motor, the shortest course would have been to motor along the hypotenuse of the triangle, rather than head for the island with the intent of later changing it (hence motoring a longer course). The tracking device seems to be rather good evidence that the N. Coronado was ran into, as opposed to a collision with a larger vessel. The CO theory is nonsense as Aegean had a diesel engine and n open cockpit on three sides.

 

The fact is that the Coronados are large islands, but at times, can be hard to see. When oriented against the lights of SD, they are rather ovious. From another angle, the beach is just as dark between S SD and TJ. So that would be a blind spot. What is most disconcerting is that everyone knows those islands are gnarly, with currents and surge, and that they are, more or less on the rhumb between NB and Ensenada Bay. Now, knowing that, any skipper (or navigator) needs to make the crew aware that they will be closing on these islands at X time. And be on the look out for them beginning, say, an hour before. Or check it out on the radar. Whatever. Frankly, it is a real disaster for this to happen and NOSA best review the qualifications of racers, hold seminars, etc. This is unacceptable!

 

Thank you -- a well reasoned response and actually somewhat what I would think happened after reviewing and hashing out things the last few days.

 

LOL.....Though you couldn't help yourself and wrote " (1) the crew were not all exerienced; (2) the watch did not have adequate experience;" when those are judgments on them and not "events or actions" that caused their fate.

 

I understand the falling asleep part, but I still am trying to get my head around " that a course was set" and that it would be right in the middle of the Island as shown by the GPS. That just makes no sense. While they are still up and awake why would they set the course for smack dab in the middle of the island ??

 

And lets give the skipper some credit, the reality is he'd been down this way many times before , he knows there are Islands there, why would he or anyone set a course anywhere near them ?! (thats the part that makes just no sense, unless his electronics were giving him messed up readings) But I can see the point about not seeing those islands very well at night and the lights from land making it tough. I hate coming in at night even into my own well known harbor, I find it very difficult with all the background lights..

 

 

ps and if he did " make the crew aware that they will be closing on these islands at X time. And be on the look out for them beginning, say, an hour before." then maybe they all were just asleep :unsure:

 

To me, the answer is pretty simple. I'd guess that there was a reliance on electronics, and not enough appreciation for the benefits of a paper chart and DR log.

 

It is easy to see how a macro view of the course on a chartplotter allows one to not see the islands when they put in a waypoint and hit go to.

 

If you have to also plot it out on a paper chart, you are going to see the islands for sure, and perhaps adjust the course accordingly.

 

It would be interesting learn from a poll conducted by the US Sailing Review Panel why NOSA requires a boat to carry a GPS, but not paper charts, and how many boats actually carry paper charts.

 

Interesting, NOSA requires of cruisers a log on their engine use, but it does not require of anyone a DR log.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of sailors have made it safely to Ensenada and beyond without the approval of NOSA or anyone else. Lexus or no Lexus, these guys wanted to sail to Ensenada. When the captain puts his ship to sea it's all him/her (and Murph and Darwin, but not NOSA), who has a hand in the end result. sad.gif

 

Best tell that to the courts - they might rule otherwise!

 

I really don't know this race but I bet that everyone that enters the race signs that they know the risks and are responsible for themselves, their boat and their crew.... and thats its up to the Skipper to determine whether to enter or subsequently bow out of the race for any reasons, whether its weather, mechanical or crew abilities.

 

Bet dollars to donuts that the race committee has indemnity from suit unless there was some overtly egregious instructions or things they did to put the boats and crew in harms way.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of sailors have made it safely to Ensenada and beyond without the approval of NOSA or anyone else. Lexus or no Lexus, these guys wanted to sail to Ensenada. When the captain puts his ship to sea it's all him/her (and Murph and Darwin, but not NOSA), who has a hand in the end result. sad.gif

 

Best tell that to the courts - they might rule otherwise!

 

Maybe Lexus will provide fuel cell propulsion units to the cruising class to eliminate the risk of CO poisoning to future contestants. They could also pay to remove those pesky, dangerous islands the litter the race course. Or maybe we could just go back to SAILING during the race.

 

Oh, I almost forgot, Taxi Dancer sailed into the mooring buoy at Rosarito beach in 1999. Right in the same field that Magnitude motored into on the way home a couple of years before. Both boats with highly experienced crews! Both boats dinged up their bows. One a bit more than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go DoucheRag, a few random shots from this year's N2E.... they probably all have the wrong size ensign as well... LOL

 

All NASBOAT - and your point is....?

 

Don't you just love the dinghy hanging off the transom of one of those fine vessels? Real racer, that one. Or, how 'bout all the dodgers - maybe they add sail area going downwind?

 

Hey dude, pics of those pigs underscores my point!

 

Thousands of sailors have made it safely to Ensenada and beyond without the approval of NOSA or anyone else. Lexus or no Lexus, these guys wanted to sail to Ensenada. When the captain puts his ship to sea it's all him/her (and Murph and Darwin, but not NOSA), who has a hand in the end result. sad.gif

 

Best tell that to the courts - they might rule otherwise!

The courts didn't have anything to do with a boat getting some face time on an island. No court rooms or lawyers (at least I hope not) in DJL.

 

No one is talking about either the rock or the boat getting sued....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of sailors have made it safely to Ensenada and beyond without the approval of NOSA or anyone else. Lexus or no Lexus, these guys wanted to sail to Ensenada. When the captain puts his ship to sea it's all him/her (and Murph and Darwin, but not NOSA), who has a hand in the end result. sad.gif

 

Best tell that to the courts - they might rule otherwise!

 

I really don't know this race but I bet that everyone that enters the race signs that they know the risks and are responsible for themselves, their boat and their crew.... and thats its up to the Skipper to determine whether to enter or subsequently bow out of the race for any reasons, whether its weather, mechanical or crew abilities.

 

Bet dollars to donuts that the race committee has indemnity from suit unless there was some overtly egregious instructions or things they did to put the boats and crew in harms way.....

 

Be advised that there can be no waiver of libility for gross negligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of sailors have made it safely to Ensenada and beyond without the approval of NOSA or anyone else. Lexus or no Lexus, these guys wanted to sail to Ensenada. When the captain puts his ship to sea it's all him/her (and Murph and Darwin, but not NOSA), who has a hand in the end result. sad.gif

 

Best tell that to the courts - they might rule otherwise!

 

Maybe Lexus will provide fuel cell propulsion units to the cruising class to eliminate the risk of CO poisoning to future contestants. They could also pay to remove those pesky, dangerous islands the litter the race course. Or maybe we could just go back to SAILING during the race.

 

Oh, I almost forgot, Taxi Dancer sailed into the mooring buoy at Rosarito beach in 1999. Right in the same field that Magnitude motored into on the way home a couple of years before. Both boats with highly experienced crews! Both boats dinged up their bows. One a bit more than the other.

 

"They could also pay to remove those pesky, dangerous islands the litter the race course"

 

its been done before ;) ..... Well maybe not to the same extent, LOL.... but the government in NY paid a ~lot~ of money at the time to demolish and blow up a huge rock ledge/mini Island in the middle of Hells gate in NY City's East river...... but then again thats was in the middle of the shipping capital at the time and when most boats had to actually sail and navigate under its own power up and down the East river (6 - 7 kts current at times with a boiling mess and rapids -- & throw a rock in the middle of the river....LOL)

 

Edited for info on this - kind of interesting --- http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/whoweare/hellgate.pdf

 

The Great Blast of Flood Rock in 1885 ÒThe greatest quantity of explosives ever attempted in a single operation.

Ó Fifty-thousand people crowded both shores of the East River to witness the great underwater explosion

that leveled the rocky reef which made navigating Hell Gate very hazardous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of sailors have made it safely to Ensenada and beyond without the approval of NOSA or anyone else. Lexus or no Lexus, these guys wanted to sail to Ensenada. When the captain puts his ship to sea it's all him/her (and Murph and Darwin, but not NOSA), who has a hand in the end result. sad.gif

 

Best tell that to the courts - they might rule otherwise!

 

I really don't know this race but I bet that everyone that enters the race signs that they know the risks and are responsible for themselves, their boat and their crew.... and thats its up to the Skipper to determine whether to enter or subsequently bow out of the race for any reasons, whether its weather, mechanical or crew abilities.

 

Bet dollars to donuts that the race committee has indemnity from suit unless there was some overtly egregious instructions or things they did to put the boats and crew in harms way.....

 

Be advised that there can be no waiver of libility for gross negligence.

 

Yeah thats why I wrote "unless there was some overtly egregious instructions or things they did to put the boats and crew in harms way."

 

But in this case no court would argue that way -- I'll bet you a case of your favorite beer on thatB)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of sailors have made it safely to Ensenada and beyond without the approval of NOSA or anyone else. Lexus or no Lexus, these guys wanted to sail to Ensenada. When the captain puts his ship to sea it's all him/her (and Murph and Darwin, but not NOSA), who has a hand in the end result. sad.gif

 

Best tell that to the courts - they might rule otherwise!

 

Maybe Lexus will provide fuel cell propulsion units to the cruising class to eliminate the risk of CO poisoning to future contestants. They could also pay to remove those pesky, dangerous islands the litter the race course. Or maybe we could just go back to SAILING during the race.

 

Oh, I almost forgot, Taxi Dancer sailed into the mooring buoy at Rosarito beach in 1999. Right in the same field that Magnitude motored into on the way home a couple of years before. Both boats with highly experienced crews! Both boats dinged up their bows. One a bit more than the other.

 

The junque at Rosarita has gel coat from many, many boats...if you haven't hit anything at Rosarita, you ain't trying hard enough. Going in there prepares you for later life as a ping pong ball.

 

However, big diff between the Rosarita junque pile and the N. Coronado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of sailors have made it safely to Ensenada and beyond without the approval of NOSA or anyone else. Lexus or no Lexus, these guys wanted to sail to Ensenada. When the captain puts his ship to sea it's all him/her (and Murph and Darwin, but not NOSA), who has a hand in the end result. sad.gif

 

Best tell that to the courts - they might rule otherwise!

 

I really don't know this race but I bet that everyone that enters the race signs that they know the risks and are responsible for themselves, their boat and their crew.... and thats its up to the Skipper to determine whether to enter or subsequently bow out of the race for any reasons, whether its weather, mechanical or crew abilities.

 

Bet dollars to donuts that the race committee has indemnity from suit unless there was some overtly egregious instructions or things they did to put the boats and crew in harms way.....

 

Be advised that there can be no waiver of libility for gross negligence.

 

Yeah thats why I wrote "unless there was some overtly egregious instructions or things they did to put the boats and crew in harms way."

 

But in this case no court would argue that way -- I'll bet you a case of your favorite beer on thatB)

 

Yes they would, and you're on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DoucheRag: "Well, it appears (sic) that you do not understand that NOSA substantially changed the character of the Ensenada Race..."

 

 

 

Umm no, it's not like there has been a massive influx of entries into the cruzer class since the rule change.

 

 

 

In any case, based on your earlier comment about running down the coast between the mainland and the Coronados, I'm sure all of these folks, no matter their entry class, have forgotten a helluva lot more about sailing to Ensenada then you'll ever know. LOL

 

More for you...

post-61940-077075100 1336623094_thumb.jpg

post-61940-097558700 1336623104_thumb.jpg

post-61940-097920300 1336623116_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes they would, and you're on.

 

ok --- I'll make it simple and take a case of "Stella", what _would_ you want ?

 

...... Not saying that the families wont try and possibly go after the "race committee" just don't think enough for courts to find anywhere ~ near~gross negligence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DoucheRag: "Well, it appears (sic) that you do not understand that NOSA substantially changed the character of the Ensenada Race..."

 

 

 

Umm no, it's not like there has been a massive influx of entries into the cruzer class since the rule change.

 

 

 

In any case, based on your earlier comment about running down the coast between the mainland and the Coronados, I'm sure all of these folks, no matter their entry class, have forgotten a helluva lot more about sailing to Ensenada then you'll ever know. LOL

 

More for you...

 

 

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because there are so many inexperienced racers out there - many cruisers, who think it's OK to chat away on Ch 16. They don't know any better.

lol.gif

 

For those that might be inclined to take that post seriously, if you tried that in the vicinity of the Ensenada Race you would have Coast Guard Sector San Diego down your throat and chewing you a new asshole in about 2 seconds.

 

Something new?

 

Did you listen to the chatter that night?

No I did not listen to marine VHF radio chatter that night.

 

But for the last decade+ the Coast Guard [around southern California] has been very vocal and aggressive about getting people off Ch 16, which is a good thing. Except during emergencies, anything more than hailing on 16 is met within seconds with a stern reminder of what Channel 16 is reserved for.

 

Since this last "Something new?" post of yours is uncharacteristically terse and sort of off on a tangent, I can't tell if were listening Saturday night/Sunday morning. That post reads as though you are implying that you were listening and that there was casual chatter on VHF 16. Did the Coast Guard relax their usual diligent harshness during the race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes they would, and you're on.

 

ok --- I'll make it simple and take a case of "Stella", what _would_ you want ?

 

...... Not saying that the families wont try and possibly go after the "race committee" just don't think enough for courts to find anywhere ~ near~gross negligence

 

Let's see now, you induce newbies to enter, offer valuable prizes, know full well that you are attracting in experienced folks to sail at night, in busy commercial lanes, islands in the way, offer nothing and demand nothing in the way of knowledge or ability or training....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But for the last decade+ the Coast Guard [around southern California] has been very vocal and aggressive about getting people off Ch 16, which is a good thing. Except during emergencies, anything more than hailing on 16 is met within seconds with a stern reminder of what Channel 16 is reserved for.

 

 

Thats the same thing here -- you usually don't get much chatter on Ch 16 other than hailing and emergencies around here either, before the CG jumps on you that is ---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And DoucheRag, as for NOSA somehow being held liable, this barely warrants a response except to say that there are many extreme sports competitions, sports a lot more risky than sailboat racing, which regularly introduce Masters classes, Junior classes, etc. to boost participation. Not only are these competitions protected by athlete waivers, there is also a little thing in the law known as 'assumed risk.'

 

Hopefully you've gotten the attention you whore for and will take your sorry ass act back to another thread 'cause you sure are a boring motherassfuker. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go DoucheRag, a few random shots from this year's N2E.... they probably all have the wrong size ensign as well... LOL

missing_the_point_SA.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they would, and you're on.

 

ok --- I'll make it simple and take a case of "Stella", what _would_ you want ?

 

...... Not saying that the families wont try and possibly go after the "race committee" just don't think enough for courts to find anywhere ~ near~gross negligence

 

Let's see now, you induce newbies to enter, offer valuable prizes, know full well that you are attracting in experienced folks to sail at night, in busy commercial lanes, islands in the way, offer nothing and demand nothing in the way of knowledge or ability or training....?

 

yeah -- I still don't think the families have a case -- Not even close ~especially~ since this was not the Skipper & the Aegeans first N2E race -- Not only that they actually won their division before !! LOL !

 

Maybe if the boat was a first timer of the race, etc and didn't have friends AND relatives say in print and and news broadcasts that the skip[per have been sailing his whole life, yada yada yada.

 

Now that I think about it after writing it here -- I'll make that TWO cases -- (even giving the crazy liberal courts in Ca) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And DoucheRag, as for NOSA somehow being held liable, this barely warrants a response except to say that there are many extreme sports competitions, sports a lot more risky than sailboat racing, which regularly introduce Masters classes, Junior classes, etc. to boost participation. Not only are these competitions protected by athlete waivers, there is also a little thing in the law known as 'assumed risk.'

 

Hopefully you've gotten the attention you whore for and will take your sorry ass act back to another thread 'cause you sure are a boring motherassfuker. LOL

 

So, another potty mouth.

 

Tata....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they would, and you're on.

 

ok --- I'll make it simple and take a case of "Stella", what _would_ you want ?

 

...... Not saying that the families wont try and possibly go after the "race committee" just don't think enough for courts to find anywhere ~ near~gross negligence

 

Let's see now, you induce newbies to enter, offer valuable prizes, know full well that you are attracting in experienced folks to sail at night, in busy commercial lanes, islands in the way, offer nothing and demand nothing in the way of knowledge or ability or training....?

 

Knock knock.

 

Seems you're wrong on all your assumptions. No surprise for a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Rag I gotta ask, what do you think happened? I mean what one or two things or events do you think happened that night that caused that to happen. I know you don't know, but from what facts we do know I am sure you have a theory or two..... You seem to have strong opinions on a few things...;-)...

 

And no fair just saying they were "inexperienced" or they had too small an ensign and that caused it..... Be specific on what you think happened -- if you think it could be one of two things then throw them out there....

 

Well, I have tried to stay away from conjecture and keep my comments directed toward defining issues and gaining more insights.

 

Based upon what little we know, I would hypothecate that: (1) the crew, as a whole, were not all exerienced; (2) the watch at the time of the incident did not have adequate experience; (3) someone just dialed in the rhumb line to the entry to Bahia Todos Santos (without due regard to the island that was in the way); (4) the motor was on, the autopilot was on; (5) the watch either fell asleep or fell overboard - the others slept below; and (6) KABOOM!

 

The theory that a course was set, with the intention of later changing it, doesn't seem to make sense as, once the decision was made to motor, the shortest course would have been to motor along the hypotenuse of the triangle, rather than head for the island with the intent of later changing it (hence motoring a longer course). The tracking device seems to be rather good evidence that the N. Coronado was ran into, as opposed to a collision with a larger vessel. The CO theory is nonsense as Aegean had a diesel engine and an open cockpit on three sides.

 

The fact is that the Coronados are large islands, but at times, can be hard to see. When oriented against the lights of SD, they are rather obvious. From another angle, the beach is just as dark between S SD and TJ. So that would be a blind spot. What is most disconcerting is that everyone knows those islands are gnarly, with currents and surge and giant flies, and that they are, more or less, on the rhumb between NB and Ensenada Bay. Now, knowing that, any skipper (or navigator) needs to make the crew aware that they will be closing on these islands at X time. And warn the crew to be on the look out for them beginning, say, an hour before. Or check it out on the radar. Whatever. Frankly, it is a real disaster for this to happen and NOSA best review the qualifications of racers, hold seminars, etc. This is unacceptable!

Consider, if you will, a point of qualification of the above: experience is a qualitative matter, not quantitative. Bad experience is often a bad teacher, no matter how much of it one has. Cruising class races N2E is not the best quality experience for offshore navigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of sailors have made it safely to Ensenada and beyond without the approval of NOSA or anyone else. Lexus or no Lexus, these guys wanted to sail to Ensenada. When the captain puts his ship to sea it's all him/her (and Murph and Darwin, but not NOSA), who has a hand in the end result. sad.gif

 

Best tell that to the courts - they might rule otherwise!

 

I really don't know this race but I bet that everyone that enters the race signs that they know the risks and are responsible for themselves, their boat and their crew.... and thats its up to the Skipper to determine whether to enter or subsequently bow out of the race for any reasons, whether its weather, mechanical or crew abilities.

 

Bet dollars to donuts that the race committee has indemnity from suit unless there was some overtly egregious instructions or things they did to put the boats and crew in harms way.....

 

Be advised that there can be no waiver of libility for gross negligence.

 

We are on particularly thin ice when we try to predict what a court will rule in a particular case. There have been rulings that it is against public policy to contract away your liability for gross negligence. Gross negligence is going to be determined by the court, not Sailing Anarchy.. It has been my experience that courts often find gross negligence based more on the severity of the injury rather than on the actions or failure to act of the defendants. If the court finds gross negligence, then all those fancy waivers drawn up by all those high price lawyers are worthless pieces of paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites